Laughable charge down decision. He grabs at the ball. Its literally no different to King earlier in the match sticking his hand out when Isa tried to put his centre away. Charge down is just hilarious. It was a desperate attempt to stop the ball going by him. He wasn't charging anything!

To the letter of the law, any part of the body hitting the ball when its rising off an opponents foot is a charge down. Not saying i agree with it. In fact its pretty daft, but it is the rule. https://www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/ru ... y_of_terms "Charging Down is blocking the path of the ball with hands, arm or body as it rises from an opponent's kick"

To the letter of the law, any part of the body hitting the ball when its rising off an opponents foot is a charge down. Not saying i agree with it. In fact its pretty daft, but it is the rule. https://www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/ru ... y_of_terms "Charging Down is blocking the path of the ball with hands, arm or body as it rises from an opponent's kick"

Great defensive from the 12 and 11, but we need to be more savvy with ball in hand near our opponents line. Some nice offloads and support play, which is encouraging after 2019. Chris Hill owe's us a big performance after that 22 minutes worth.

Agreed


No, it's a charge down. Doesn't matter where he sticks his hand, which direction the ball goes, or what he was trying to do. When you play at a ball rising from a kick, it's automatically a charge down. You can't knock on in that situation, but you risk giving the kicking team another set of 6 if they get to it first. Whichever team picks the ball up plays on from tackle 1.

Well if that is the correct interpretation of the chargedown rule, and assuming it hasn't changed lately, then a lot, and I mean [ia lot[/i of charge downs have been incorrectly deemed knock ons for, oh I don't know a century or so.

As for ball strips. Whatever. It's a lottery, but some teams to have more of the winning numbers than others.

Obvious you haven't a clue about the rules..

That's 2 that thought Kendall got it right...your rugby knowledge is on a par with my jack russell

We lost, last night. I get it.
A sinbinning and a sending off scuppered that, BUT, a huge reason for our loss, was our lack of ideas, 10M in. Don't get me wrong, I love Austin in a Wire shirt, but he's an [ioff the cuff[/i player. Not a creator. Likewise Rarchford. This will (hopefully) change with Widdop.

The bringing up of a "charge down" and then a strip as an excuse, seems a little desperate. Our defeat was our own fault. But, Kendal's "decision making" was frustrating. If the rule about a charge down involves a rising ball, then his interpretation is more baffling than some of the VAR decisions we're seeing in football. Likewise the clamping down of a foot actually being used in the PTB..
Stains were just penalised for this. Two mins later, Salford had a set of six, not once did a foot come into contact with the ball, and only twice was some kind of attempt made.

RL referees. About as much use as a perforated condom

It's no shame to not know certain rules, lots of people enjoy the game for decades without needing to understand every intricacy. I'm good with the rules but couldn't explain a wedge or a block play. However, by now you've seen the ref award it, you've had the rule clearly explained to you by three people, quoting the policy and giving you examples. Surely you must have an inkling by now that it was correct. I'm not even saying it's a good rule, but it is the rule.

Your guys can take a lot from that performance. Would have liked to have seen what would have happened if Hill doesn't get sent off and we don't lose two players early doors to injury. Hope Currie regains his form, hate seeing players get wrecked by injury like that.

Watching the Saints game you can add the PTB to the "what's going on?" list.

At the moment it seems to be a blank cheque for teams to slow the PTB down even more, still have "good line speed" as they say and wait for the error. Throw in random penalties for not playing the ball correctly, which applies to 99% of them, and I'm not feeling it.

Salford are appalling though.

Forgot to add, what's with you guys going for 2 when you're 4 down? I've seen you do it before against Saints I think? Overly conservative tactic IMO, go for the jugular

The repetitive Austin kicks, that never came up trumps ONCE in the game, was very frustrating.... I dont think he kicked a good one all night.

also on the hill sending off... yes there was contact with the head and yes it was a clumsy tackle... BUT, he had to make a split second tackle from behind to prevent a try... his arms weren't raised above his shoulder, his was aiming down... it was just unfortunate that the player was dipping so low at the time.... it was the player moving down that made the contact with head a bad one... not a swinging head high arm....... I thought a yellow would have been enough... if the player hadn't been stretchered off, then im sure the decision wouldn't have been a red.

harsh red for me.. the ref reacted to the 'severity' of the injured player (who is fine btw) rather than looking at the actual mechanics behind the tackle.

In a nutshell.

Hill had to go but he was in an impossible position.What was he meant to do in a millisecond, weigh up his options ? Natural instinct to attempt preventing a try but the letter of the law left the reff with no option.

I know a knock on from a charge down shame Kendall didn't

Doesn't matter whether or not it's careless or intentional nor does it matter whether or not the player is going down already. Contact with the head such as that is a red card. He doesn't bounce up off his shoulder or the ball, he hits him (with both arms) around the head.

like i said.... he was penalised for the outcome, rather than the actual tackle.... if the player doesn't stoop down so quickly, hill probably gets both arms around the ball and were talking about an amazing tackle.

its fine margins.. especially when a player is diving to the floor. .. its contact with the head, buts its unfortunate... nothing more.

eye gouging and leading with the elbow into someones throat are both worse offences for me.

If you think the knock on rule still applies to a rising ball from a kick, what do you think a charge down is?

I'll give you a clue.
I've been watching RL for 40+ years.
In all that time I've watched RL, a charge down occurs, when the "charger" is in extreme close proximity to the kicker, anything else is
a) stopping the kicked ball going a lot further
b) a genuine attempt to INTERCEPT/CATCH the ball

Now, bearing in mind, I don't watch half time or full time punditry (Jon Wells is a collosal whopper), I can only rely I what I remember from the actual coverage. The Wigan player WAS NOT in extreme close proximity (as would be seen for any normal charge down), therefore, it's either one of examples a or b, as mentioned earlier.

Now, bear in mind (again, iirc) the Wigan player handled the ball at waist height or lower, even the most one-eyed resident of Poolstock Lane must admit that it's hardly "rising", when he's a number of feet/metres away.
I hope that's cleared it up for you

lefty.... why are you even bothering?

Everyone knows it was a knock on... you wont get any change from a trolling cross-board knucklehead.

I've been watching TV for 30 years, I still couldn't tell you how it works. I think you're getting mixed up with 'not played at', which is something else entirely. If the defender is in extreme proximity to the kicker, the chances are he won't have the time to play at it. It'll whack him, not played at, tackle count continues if the kicking team get it, if the defending team pick it up then it's tackle 1. Clearly he did play at this one (all charge downs are when the ball is played at).

It's pretty rare that the highest point a kick gets to is waist height, surely it's a fair assumption that it would have continued to rise had he not stopped it with his hand/arm. So we combine played at + rising ball = charge down. Doesn't matter that it went forwards, how far away he was or where he stuck his arm.

I'm genuinely not trolling and have complimented Wire's performance in this thread. Prior to Hill going off I thought you were going to beat us. I'm just trying to explain a misunderstood rule, but I think at this point some fans are determined not to understand because it's easier to just blame the ref.

The outcome being he smacks him in the head so yes he was penalised for it

I genuinely thought it was a knock on at the time, but having heard the ruling I can see why it was given the way it was.

well done... great 'bantz'.

please take your massive brain and jog on please.

Not 'bantz' just fact. It's the absolute definition of a red card.